The Indian government told the Karnataka High Court on Thursday that allowing social media platforms to spread unlawful content in the name of free speech is dangerous for the country’s democracy. Referring to Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter), the Centre accused the company of trying to “escape accountability” by misusing legal protections under the IT Act, according to The Times of India.
Govt Says X Is Misinterpreting the Law
In its submission, the Centre said that X was wrongly using the ‘safe harbour’ clause, which shields intermediaries from legal consequences as long as they follow specific rules. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta explained in the letter that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution while protecting free speech “must not be misunderstood as absolute protection even of unlawful content.”
Mehta pointed out that “constitutional jurisprudence clearly differentiates between protected speech that contributes meaningfully to democratic discourse and unlawful speech that undermines societal stability and individual rights.”
‘Safe Harbour’ Comes With Duties, Says Centre
The government stressed that ‘safe harbour’ is “not an absolute right” but “a privilege contingent upon strict adherence to statutory duties.” This statement came after X filed a petition in the High Court seeking protection from possible government action.
In response, the Centre said that “unlawful and unjustified orders harm the X platform and its ability to operate,” but added that X had no right to ignore India’s laws. Officials argued that the company cannot claim immunity under the IT Act while refusing to comply with legal duties.
According to the Centre, X’s legal argument “fundamentally misconstrues the very basis of this legal protection.” It added that “‘safe harbour’ is not a constitutional guarantee but a statutory privilege, specifically designed to foster responsible conduct.”
Social Media’s Reach Calls for Greater Responsibility
The Centre emphasized that social media companies have enormous influence because of their ability to spread information instantly and widely. Mehta wrote that “social media intermediaries possess an unparalleled ability to amplify information instantaneously, without traditional barriers like language or geographical limitations, and thus carry significant responsibilities.”
He warned that the “proliferation of unlawful content” on platforms like X “poses an unprecedented threat to public discourse, democracy and societal stability.”
Algorithms Influence Society, Not Just Users
In its detailed submission, the government accused X and similar platforms of playing an active role in shaping public opinion. It stated that “the algorithms used by intermediaries actively curate and boost content,” and these actions can either “promote social harmony or fuel disorder.”
For this reason, the Centre argued that social media should face stricter regulations than traditional media outlets. “This active role demands heightened accountability,” the Centre added, saying this justifies “robust regulation specifically tailored for social media, distinct from traditional media.”
Why It Matters
This case could influence how all social media platforms operate in India. It also mirrors global debates—especially in the United States, where there are calls to remove Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law that gives platforms similar immunity.
The Centre made it clear that it sees ‘safe harbour’ as conditional, not as a blanket shield, and that freedom of speech must not be used to justify the circulation of harmful or illegal content.
